Wednesday, January 14, 2009

As I understand it, white folks are notorious in certain circles, or from certain perspectives, for thinking they got wherever they are all by themselves. For thinking that if they got somewhere special, they made it there by pulling off the feat of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps (a feat which is, when you think about it, physically impossible--which makes it an appropriately messed-up metaphor). For thinking they hit a triple when they were born on first base. For failing to see their invisible racial knapsack, full of unearned maps, tools, and provisions.

Some white folks, though, they do get their hustle on. More have to these days, given the declining state of things. And in certain situations, for certain younger white folks, maybe it helps to talk or write with a borrowed vocabulary and flow while they're doing that. Or maybe they just think that helps. If so, they know which side of the racial street to borrow it from. Or take it from.

Watch, for instance, how this young white guy is reaching for the sky. His instructional viddie about how to find some bootstraps makes me wonder--how does the fact that he's white factor into the ways that he's making it? Wouldn't his ingenuity and hard work be harder in some ways if he were something other than white? If so, what's up with his way of talking, like he is something other than white?

55 comments:

I thought "a feat which is, when you think about it, physically impossible--which makes it an appropriately messed-up metaphor" was witty and apt, but then you had to go mess up the respect you gained with the next sentence.

Anyway, your post is stereotyping non-white people again (read: black), now as hustlers.

No Restructure!, I meant first base. White people who say that usually have done some work to get where they are, but that work isn't the only thing that got them there. So they weren't born on third base, and they haven't come as far around the bases on their own as they think they have.

As for who stereotypes "non-white people (read: black)" as "hustlers," seems to me it's the kid in the video doing that.

As for the word "hustle," does it mean in this context "scam"? Or "hard work"? Or maybe both?

I think you are severely underestimating white privilege, and your "first base" metaphor is incoherent. Here is a good explanation of the "third base" metaphor:

"In baseball, the object is to score runs by hitting the ball and then running safely to first base, then second base, then third base, and then across home plate. Most runners get to third base only through a combination of their own efforts and the efforts of following batters, whose further hits advance the runner to third base. Once the runner is on third base, it becomes much easier for him to score. A very good hit, in which one reaches third base in a single effort, is called a triple. Triples are rare, and difficult to achieve.

There are some people who, with no effort on their own part, find themselves in a position of great advantage merely through who their parents are. The proper thing to do in such circumstances is to be modest, and to acknowledge that one's advantages are not owed to one's own great skill, or intelligence, or effort. What this saying means is that there are some people who find themselves in positions of wealth and comfort through birth (which is as advantageous in life as being on third base is advantageous for a baseball player), but who instead of giving credit to the mere chance of their birth and the efforts of other people, act as if their positions of advantage were the results of their own individual, admirable, and extraordinary efforts."

Let me guess, you believe that you were born on first base, with respect to race?

He walks out the 99 cent store with all that orange juice in a shopping cart. Normally, they don't let you take the shopping cart out of the lot. How does he transport it back home or to the outdoor skate park? Does he have a car or something?

topics like this show that also whiteness studies should be more structured and also should include more than just skin-color. It may be a difficult but necessary effort, but sometimes I get the impresson that whiteness studies and white privilege is considered to much from a Eurocentric point of view and therefore superficial.

Restructure, i think what Macon D meant with the baseball analogy is that some people who end up on third base didn't start at home plate. Rather, because of their white privilege, they had a headstart--that is they were born already on first. They only had 2 bases instead of 3 to work towards to be in the scoring position. Someone without white privilege has to work harder since they start at home plate, not first base. They have 3 bases to 'run' to be in scoring position. This made perfect sense to me. The only thing incoherent about this post is your rambling.

And your respect is nothing i'd worry about messing up. Frankly, your constant bile is making me wonder if you are some scorned ex-lover of Macon's seeking vengeance.

macon, i'm confused by the essentialism, but i'll play along. yes, the boy has adopted "a way of talking ... that is other than white," much like your own always-conspicuous use of the word "folks" after the word "white." or is that not a phrase intended to imply an outsider's view upon, a distance from, "white folks"?

also, i'm not sure you realize that this young man is hardly an apt example of white privilege--your question over whether he'd find his ingenuity and so on would pay off if he were not white makes it sound like you think it's paying off now. but this young man is clearly poor without much education, and i'll wager without health insurance. he's not making out well, whatever he thinks. it's very sad that he thinks he's somehow beating the system.

yes, the boy has adopted "a way of talking ... that is other than white," much like your own always-conspicuous use of the word "folks" after the word "white." or is that not a phrase intended to imply an outsider's view upon, a distance from, "white folks"?

No, it's not intended that way. I'm a white guy too--one of the white folks. While "folks" is conspicuous to you, it's more of a habit to me. Saying or writing "white people" all the time sounds too dry and formal to my ear. And I've known a lot of white people who refer to other groups of (usually white) people as "folks." So no, it's not an intentionally distancing word choice.

Regarding your second paragraph, I'm trying to see how he's "white"--what sorts of common white tendencies he's enacting. Thinking about how what he's doing would be different if he weren't white is a way of getting at that. I wouldn't deny that despite being white, he's also apparently poor. But I also wouldn't be surprised if he's a suburban kid with folks, er, parents, who aren't all that poor. A lot of suburban kids think it's cool to act "poor" (today's Tom Sawyer?), kinda like they often think it's cool to act "black." From what I've seen, those are both common white-suburban tendencies. They're the ways of white folks, I mean, some white folks.

>Frankly, your constant bile is making me wonder if you are some scorned ex-lover of Macon's seeking vengeance.

The phantasy some people use in their attempt to discredit somebody who criticizes is surprising. I mean, which nation is so proud of its first amendment and free speech? Is this only valid for certain people and others have to be silent or aren't allowed to express their thoughts freely? I wonder...On the other hand, this displays the social control which exists also in real life society and why change or something like this is impossible as long as people prefer the superficial and follow the wrong 'leaders' and are to easily impressed by empty lip-service

If somebody is on first base, it is logically impossible that they hit a triple, since they must have hit a single. If somebody is on third base, however, they could have hit a single, double, or triple, and if they hit a single or double, they got to where they are with the help of others.

"Thinking they hit a triple when they were born on first base," is an incoherent metaphor because of the above, and also because it means that they believe they are further ahead in life than they actually are (they believe that they are on third base, but are actually on first base).

I'm also amazed at some of the rationalizations that people can come up with to defend Macon D. If you want to understand what beef I have with Macon D, you can check out some of my criticisms.

As for the video, it looks so fake to me. I know there are genuinely poor white people, but I think that guy in the video lives in the suburbs. 99 cent stores tend to be located in the suburbs, and the one he was at looked surprisingly clean. Even if there happened to be a 99 store where he was, it doesn't explain how he can transport that huge load of groceries with only a skateboard. You already saw him struggling to put the "orrange" drinks only in the shopping cart. Did his mom drop him off at the "outdoorr" skate park?

wow. so both macon and restructure suspect that this young man, who spends a series of full days selling drinks, scanning want ads, running back and forth to the pawn shop, etc., and who apparently thinks that having 80 dollars to show at the end makes him some kind of operator who has figured out how to beat the system, is really just a modern tom sawyer. they say that if he's white but also in apparent financial distress, he must be actually slumming, playing poor. without any real reason to think so (regardless of restructure's detective work on the transportability of the kid's drinks, which is about as myopic as his interest in dissecting macon's tired and yes, probably misstated baseball analogy), both macon and restructure suspect he lives in the suburbs with financially well-off parents, and that this is all a game to him.

this kind of thing says a lot about how much experience the two of you have had with poor white people. it also says a lot about how relevant the whole paradigm of this site is to the actual forms oppression takes in this country.

Anonymous, saying that I "wouldn't be surprised" isn't the same as saying "I suspect." What I'm saying is, I don't know whether he's poor or not, but if he's a suburban kid, that wouldn't surprise me, because I've encountered a lot of suburban kids who get outside of their suburban selves by reaching across lines discernible in terms of both race and class. How can you be so sure, from this video, that he's poor?

As for "the actual forms oppression takes in this country," are you saying it's all about class, instead of race? That the perception of racism is just like, a phantasmal distraction from the realities of class? What do you think are the actual forms oppression takes in this country, and why does seeking to understand whiteness fail to help in understanding those "actual" forms of oppression?

i'll leave the dissertation on the nature of oppression to someone else. i will admit that yes, there is a difference between saying you wouldn't be surprised by something you have no evidence for, and saying you suspect it. so in that spirit, i'll say this. "i wouldn't be surprised," macon, if you have never in your life had to worry about whether you had enough money to buy food. i wouldn't be surprised if your economic condition is such that you would never dream of buying a case of sodas to hawk at the local skatepark. and so not knowing what that feels like, what it means, it's hard for you to feel much sympathy for people who do live like that. instead, you see the video and think, hm, white poor guy, what does this mean for me and my blog? and then a little later you start in about how possibly he's just pretending to be poor, and then restructure of course piles on. it's all so predictable.

so that's a failure of sympathy. and that's about all i can stand of this shameful discussion.

He spent a series of full days shooting a video with his friend who is holding the camera, then goes back to edit it with strategic cut scenes, then spends some time providing the voiceovers, adding music and titles, to create a very polished video. Then he uploads it through a high speed internet connection on to YouTube.

The first scene with the 99 cent store is already suspicious. That dollar store is humongous. I've never seen a dollar store that huge, let alone most grocery stores in urban areas. At 0:20 to 0:22, it even looks like the suburbs, because of the wide open spaces and the ridiculous size of the store that is typical of suburbs and urban sprawl. At 0:30 to 0:35, you can see huge, long shopping aisles.

Secondly, what kind of dollar store has shopping carts and automatic sliding doors? It looks even more suburban than the dollar stores I've been to in the suburbs.

All that is about typical versus atypical, but you still haven't told me how he can transport a huge cartload of groceries with no car (I would like to know, for personal reasons). It's like not only do you believe everything on TV, but you believe anything you see on the internet. The guy didn't even say that he was poor, but just wanted to make the point that if you have $5, the sky's the limit to what you can do, which is wrong.

The guy spends several full days multiplying his $5, but how does he have food to eat? The $3 of groceries he bought aren't going to last him. It only makes sense if he's living at home and doesn't have to worry about food, and his video is about how he multiplied that $5 allowance his parents gave him.

(Also, I thought it was 99 cents for 1 pack of 6, which was already ridiculously cheap, and I've never seen something that cheap at a dollar store. I watched it again, and seems like it's 99 cents for 6 packs of 6, which is unbelievable. Sure, it happened where he was, but normally, groceries are not basically free like that. (99 cents for 6 packs of 6? Did I hear that right?))

This video and all the other ones made by the same loser are filed under "entertainment". See Macon, the kid thinks his videos are entertainment, jokes, a way of making fun of people, this is not an example of some poor white kid, the biggest laugh is that you, Macon, think this video is real.

And why do you think that because something's "filed under entertainment," it automatically doesn't have a point or points to make?

And what do you think of this white kid basically putting on blackface by talking the way he does in this video, as I more or less asked at the end of the post? Given what you've said on that topic in other comments here, I would think you'd have something to say about it, no? (I'm not claiming the video is "real.")

And did you read the comments here? I'm not sure if he's poor or not. It seems quite possible that he's a relatively well-off suburban kid who doesn't need to hustle like he does in the video.

"Pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" is one of the more loathsome white middle values. Isn't it interesting that the common perception among middle class white people is that when they do the bootstrap pulling, it's called "ingenuity" and "hard work" and when working class and POC do it, it's labeled "hustling" or perceived as "criminal"?

On a side note, Macon & Restructure!, I don't think that it's fair to assume that this kid is from the suburbs because he is white or because he's filming in areas that you think look "clean" or "suburban". Perhaps where you are from the suburbs are primarily populated by wealthy white people. Where I'm from (Portland, OR) the suburbs are typically where POC and white working class live. The inner city here has been gentrified by the white middle class, thus driving up housing prices and forcing the working class out to the suburbs.

Good points, oterhog, thanks for adding them. Just to be clear, as I said above, I don't assume that this kids is from the 'burbs. I wouldn't be surprised if he is, but I don't actually know if he is or not. And yes, even if he is, that's not necessarily a marker of his or his parents' financial status.

It sounds like Portland is another of many places changed by "reversewhite flight," and this kid may well live and/or film his videos in such a place too.

OMG, Macon, you're SO CLEARLY privileged! As oterhog points out, your understanding of the suburbs as the place of "white" "wealth" show that you really just aren't familiar with poverty, don't know where to look for it. You sound like you think this is 1978 and that we're all living in an episode of Good Times, where poor blacks live in the ghetto and the rest of the country is well-off whites having lawn parties. "The suburbs." Sub-Urban. Where is that, exactly? Is it a really nice place? Show me! The suburbs I live in are a hell of fast food, bankrupt strip malls, drugs, violence, ignorance, impoverishment. Everything awful about the city, but with none of the benefits. (museums, galleries, public transport) Even that lame term you use, "reverse white flight" just shows how stuck you are on concepts that just DON'T WORK ANYMORE, Macon! Talking about how people like the guy in the video are riding off their whiteness is just stupid! And Kathy's point is just so clearly totally lost on you.

Yes Anonymous, I am privileged, I've never denied that. And if you're white, you are too. Do you deny that?

Do you know what "white flight" was? If so, why do you think the now-commonplace notion of "reverse white flight" is a "lame term" for referring to the process that oterhog describes, whereby "The inner city here has been gentrified by the white middle class, thus driving up housing prices and forcing the working class out to the suburbs"? As oterhog notes, that moving middle class is white, or largely white, and the working class moving in the opposite direction is largely non-white. You claim I'm stuck on concepts that just "DONT WORK ANYMORE," but the racial component of that concept makes a lot of sense to me--why doesn't it to you?

I don't live in a nearly all-white suburb, but they do still exist, and I've seen many--didn't George Bush just buy a house in one? Some suburbs are like the one you live in, others aren't. Some have homes that inner-city residents can afford to buy or rent, and some still don't--proximity to the city is probably a determining factor. I'm no expert on demographic changes, but surely that lack of expertise doesn't delegitimize the questions raised in this post, nor the concepts and suppositions expressed on this blog more generally--that white people are not, as they tend to think, atomized individuals unaffected in their thought and behavior by their racial membership. And as the questions at the end of my post imply, this kid seems to be enacting some common white tendencies (whether or not he means them as "entertainment"). I'm not saying that all white people have all the same tendencies, nor am I talking about how this kid is "riding off his whiteness"--I'm not saying that his hard work isn't just that, hard work. But, since he's white, and since he talks about it the way he does, it's probably different in some ways for him than it would be for someone who is, say, black.

So if all of this strikes you as "stupid," what do you think is a better way to deal with things? And if you're the Anonymous who wrote so vaguely above about how oppression really works in this country, do you really think that race no longer has anything to do with that? And do you really think that being categorized as "white" no longer accounts for appreciable differences in the lives of white people?

As for Kathy's point, what do you think it is, and why do you think it's "lost" on me?

OK, here's one for you. I contend that whiteness has so little to do with the power dynamics behind the gentrification of the inner city as to make speaking of such phenomena in terms of whiteness stupid. To be precise, I suppose that phenomena such as the gentrification of the inner city, whereby low-income residents of such urban spaces are forced into surburban slums, may impact members of some racial groups disproportionately. I suppose this because though I haven't looked up the numbers I further suppose that poverty statistics are still not dispersed across racial groups proportionately in the US. But this is not to say that I believe that "whiteness," by which this blog seems repeatedly if vaguely to mean a matrix of cultural associations and biases, has anything to do with that. People with economic power are destroying neighborhoods by driving up property values through their willingness to pay more for multi-dwelling buildings they then gut and refurb as a single-family unit. Black people are welcome to do this; latinos are welcome to do it, asians are welcome to do it, and all three of these groups include wealthy capitalists who do so. The banks will not turn down anyone who can meet their financial requirements but who is not white, nor will the contractors who performs the refurbs. The only requirement is that you be wealthy.

"I'm privileged and if you're white, you are too." What a heartless, stupid thing to say.

@Anonymous at 9:37am on 1/19, I wasn't trying to point out Macon's or Restructure!'s misunderstanding of the suburbs with my comment. I guess I was just trying to redirect the conversation.

When I comment on SWPD, I do it because I'm also a white person who is trying to figure out what being white means, to be more aware of my white privilege, and to learn ways to do better ally work with all oppressed people. Sometimes I make racist mistakes when I comment, and I appreciate it when people voluntarily point these mistakes out to me (as painful as it is for me and to the people who are hurt by my comments). I also recognize that it is my responsibility and not the responsibility of POC to teach me how to be a better anti-racist.

Macon makes racist mistakes here too (as all white people do), and I'm noticing that many commenters here (we all know who you are) are using SWPD to just attack Macon, or to "catch" him being a racist. I get that what he writes often makes you angry, and I'm not saying you shouldn't be. I'm not saying I disagree with you pointing out Macon's mistakes either. And Macon, you seem to get pretty defensive when this happens (another common white tendency that I often do as well). Then the anti-Macon's and Macon tediously argue out tiny details that often alienate everyone else from the discussion.

I don't want to suggest that there is a "right" or a "wrong" way to discuss issues on this blog. In fact, I have no idea how we should resolve this issue, or if it's just my issue and I just need to get over it. Perhaps I am making another racist mistake in bringing this up, but I wanted to put it out there for discussion.

Oterhog,it's not that there is a wrong way or a right way, it's that Macon D picks and chooses which comments he cares to publish, calls people names if he doesn't agree with the point, and in general, believes that he is superior to the people who leave comments here.

Thanks for addressing what most of us are trying to do here, Oterhog, and helping to think about better ways of doing it. As for me, yes, I do get defensive, probably because I've been trained to react that way in discussions about race, but also because, as you noted, some commenters seem more interested in catching instances of my racism and in minor details than in the main issues and points raised in various posts. On the other hand, if someone points out something wrong with something that I've written, and I'm convinced it's wrong, I change it or otherwise register my new thinking--I've done that many times in the past.

Kathy, I don't believe that I'm superior to the commenters here--where have I ever written that? And calling people names is certainly not a habit of mine--where have I ever done that on this blog? Yes, I do choose not to publish some submitted comments, those which would do anything but advance the discussion. Some contain personal attacks, of me and of other commenters, some are mere racist rants, and some display other personal motives and interests that have too little connection to the topic at hand.

On a side note, Macon & Restructure!, I don't think that it's fair to assume that this kid is from the suburbs because he is white or because he's filming in areas that you think look "clean" or "suburban". Perhaps where you are from the suburbs are primarily populated by wealthy white people. Where I'm from (Portland, OR) the suburbs are typically where POC and white working class live.

Actually, I'm a POC that grew up in a POC suburb.

If I think he lives in a suburb because I think the areas he's filming in look "suburban", it has nothing to do with racial assumptions. I'm also confused why you think I am making "suburbs=white" assumptions if I pointed out that the areas he's filming in look "clean" (and therefore suburban). Are POC suburbs dirty where you are?

@ Restructure, I agree with you that "suburban" doesn't automatically mean that people of a certain race or socioeconomic class live there. Thank you for making this important point very clear.

I think the common white perception of the suburbs is that they are white and middle class. You said in an earlier post, "As for the video, it looks so fake to me. I know there are genuinely poor white people, but I think that guy in the video lives in the suburbs." It seemed to me that you were asserting that suburban=not poor.

True true. I do have class associations with suburban versus urban, which may be wrong. I know suburban doesn't mean not poor. However, I also thought that if you live in the suburbs, you cannot be very poor, but this is wrong after thinking about it for a few seconds.

In any case, one thing that always bothered me was how groceries, etc. were so much cheaper in the suburbs, but people who do not have cars cannot access these sales. Another thing that I've noticed in general was that when you go shopping, you can tell who owns a car by seeing which shoppers are using a shopping cart (versus a shopping basket).

The guy in the video enacts suburban, car-culture mannerisms, which gave me the impression that he is not really poor. (But I'm assuming that if you have and use a car, you cannot be that poor. Maybe this assumption is unwarranted?)

Anyway, I'm skeptical of the 99 cent store scene and how such a hustle could be sustainable or viable (food and transportation are not accounted for). It seems unrealistic, like when people offer "solutions" to poverty that depend on assuming that other people have the same privileges that you have (e.g., "buy in bulk" to save money works only if you have extra money in your pocket and extra space in your home).

As for me, yes, I do get defensive, probably because I've been trained to react that way in discussions about race, but also because, as you noted, some commenters seem more interested in catching instances of my racism and in minor details than in the main issues and points raised in various posts.

Yes, of course you think that your racism is "minor" and trivial, and that the "real" white people we should focus on and criticize are the subjects of your posts.

On the other hand, if someone points out something wrong with something that I've written, and I'm convinced it's wrong, I change it or otherwise register my new thinking--I've done that many times in the past.

I just want to state that I disagree with his assessment of "many". I'm tired of arguing about how he usually doesn't change his racist posts because he doesn't get why they're racist. However, what usually happens is that the post remains unchanged and his thinking remains the same, relative to how much he has been criticized. (I'm not saying that he has to accept every criticism, but the problem is that he doesn't take them seriously, because of the race of the critic, etc.)

Yes, how Macon D refuses to publish some of my comments makes me frustrated, because it gives the impression that I'm not dissenting and that I'm letting it pass. Sometimes I get so frustrated that I stop commenting for a long period.

Restructure, you don't play the martyr very well, or else, you play it inappropriately. In the seven or eight months you've been posting here, I've refused to publish two of your comments--maybe three. And as I recall, those were rejected either as instances where your "bile" (as another commenter here put it) was just too bilious for me to stomach, or because they dredged up issues hashed out long before in other comment threads.

Yes, of course you think that your racism is "minor" and trivial, and that the "real" white people we should focus on and criticize are the subjects of your posts.

No I don't think my racism is minor--I've written about my own racism many times here, and I'm fine with others pointing out other instances of it to me. I was talking above about people who have stopped by here repeatedly, almost habitually, to do little more than take pot shots at my racism, be it real or, in some cases, clearly imagined. The statement you just made is a good example of the latter, your claim that I don't take some commenters seriously because of their race. That's flat-out ridiculous, a false and characteristically presumptuous claim about what goes on inside me. I take all commenters here seriously, if they have seriously constructive--instead of unrelentingly destructive, personal, and/or irrelevant--things to say. And if you're talking about the third wheel of your anti-Macon gang, I rejected some of his posts (a long time ago) because other commenters complained about his persistent, pugnacious thread-hijacking, and I agreed. I spent many hours before that taking his comments seriously, until I realized that he seems mostly interested in proving me wrong and himself right, at all costs, instead of getting somewhere constructive or useful with me.

I'm tired of arguing about how he usually doesn't change his racist posts because he doesn't get why they're racist.

So I should change them even though I disagree, because one POC is telling me they're racist? (That's a rhetorical question.) That in itself sounds like a racist thing for me to do. Anyway, enough about me, and about what you think of me.

how long will you use your "training" as an excuse and when will you start taking responsibility for who you are?

What? It's not an "excuse," it's an explanation. And what do you mean by who I "am"? Like, my basic, inborn personality? Anyway, that doesn't strike me as worth discussing here, on a blog about whiteness, where a primary goal is to identify common white tendencies, and when one way to do that is to identify what are probably some of those tendencies that I myself enact or have enacted.

But Macon, this is what various posters on this site have tried over and over again to get you to consider. Too often you identify some upsetting part of your own personality, like the blog where you wrote about having wished starving Africans would just die off, or the one where you wrote about having wanted to take photos of the dead native bodies you saw in whatever country it was you were visiting that time (sorry, I can't remember!) , and then you attribute those ways of thinking to "all white people" or "white training." What jw is asking you to consider, and what others on this site have asked you to consider, is whether those thoughts are as widely-shared as you think.

As I've said before, I know this is painful. But you still aren't confronting this part of yourself. I say these things because I know that you can, Macon.

sandykin, it seems to me that what you aren't confronting is the presence of some common proclivities in a lot of white people (and note my use of "common proclivities"--I can't recall ever claiming that all white people have them).

The "various commenters" you refer to are a distinct minority here. The overwhelming majority left comments that counter your earlier claim, which you repeat here, that my fleeting teenage question in a journal entry about why we don't just let starving Africans die was not, first of all, a "wish." The rest of the post registers my own horror that I could ever have asked such a question--that's the point of the post. And as a lot of other commenters recognized, it was a familiar question, because it echoes a larger, and very common "white" and "first world" disregard for the less fortunate in other countries, especially of the Others in those other countries who aren't seen by us whites as similar to ourselves because they're not white. If you don't see racism in the innumerable instances of a general American and European colonialist disregard and lack of empathy for large-scale, non-white death in other countries, than it's you, not me, who's refusing to see an "upsetting part" of a larger "personality," that of a willfully insular, callous, and oblivious white collective consciousness.

As for the other incident you reference here, I was with three other people who also made what I described in that post as a "thoroughly stupid request," to take photos of dead bodies, which we'd been led to by a member of the tourist industry in Indonesia. Again, it wasn't just me, and again, most commenters agreed with me that the inhumane distancing from the misery of darker Others that I wrote about in that post, and of which I saw that particular moment as exemplary, are not just upsetting parts of my own personality. I'm quite sure that hundreds, perhaps thousands of so-called first-world tourists went to that little village before and after me to view that way of handling the dead, and that they made the same thoroughly stupid request. I'm also sure that for many of them, if they were white, the distancing effect instilled by white supremacist training helped to harden them into a state where they could make such a request (which is not to say, by the way, that non-white tourists would not also make the same request; simply being a citizen of the insular and oblivion-inducing first world can also instill such a proclivity, but racial terms, they may well feel less of an inducement of this sort.)

Are you white, sandykin? If so, you really should confront this part of yourself, and attend to what being classified that way has probably done to you. I say this--if you're white--because although it's painful, I know that you can do it, sandykin.

I'll try, Macon, but my problem is that i've never felt those things. The idea of photographing a corpse just gives me shivers. I've never thought that maybe we should just let starving people die. Yes, I'm white. Could you tell me how to confront feelings I've never had?

But, Macon, why only "if I'm white?" If I were a POC but also a member of the insular, oblivion-producing first world, why wouldn't also want to attend to a part of myself that dehumanizes members of other cultures?

If that's true, and if you're a white American, then I think you're quite an exception. You must feel an almost incapacitating horror, then, at the racist wars recently conducted, and currently conducted, by your own country, and if you work, with your own tax dollars. Since you're apparently a more sensitive person than the average white American, then the millions of recent non-white deaths at American hands, with your tax dollars, must make you at least "shiver" too? Given what you've said in an effort to distinguish your supposed sensitivity from my supposed callousness, it might be inspiring for others here to know--what has that horror propelled you to do? Surely some extensive, active, and even self-sacrificing acts? What acts of civil disobedience have you committed to counter racist abuses conducted in your name, with your money? Have you refused to pay taxes, knowing that otherwise, your name would, in effect, be written on the rocket that kills dozens of members of an Afghan wedding party? A rocket that would be far less likely to do such a thing to people living in a "white" country?

I guess I'm not telling you how to confront feelings you've never had. But maybe you're not confronting feelings that some part of you does have? If, that is, you're a white American living a more or less comfortable life, how else could you do so, other than by hardening your humane feelings of empathy and commonality, so that you can continue living in such a way that contributes to, and benefits from, the misery and deaths of untold numbers of non-white, non-American people?

But, Macon, why only "if I'm white?" If I were a POC but also a member of the insular, oblivion-producing first world, why wouldn't also want to attend to a part of myself that dehumanizes members of other cultures?

Not "only" if you're white--as I said, and as you're saying, other factors can inspire such feelings in non-white others too. However, as you may have noticed, this blog is called "Stuff White People Do," so the doings, and not-doings, of white folks are the focus here. That's not to say that various sorts of other people don't also do some of those things, and I don't think I need to say that constantly for it to be understood by most of my readers.

I joined Peace Corps straight out of college in 1987 and ended up serving in Belize. I worked there first with sanitation engineers who were building a new septic system for a school, then with the school itself, but was finally able to get involved with the HIV/AIDS program, which is what I really cared about and where I met my husband, who is Kriol. It was hard work, but wonderful. If anyone reading this is thinking about serving through Peace Corps, do it! You’ll never regret it.

I think civil disobedience can often alleviate an unjust situation like the gulf war, though I also think this evil war is more complicated than calling it "racist" makes it sound. I haven;t stopped paying my taxes. But I volunteered as much as I could for President Obama (PRESIDENT Barack!!!!) and I also gave some money to a church that I don't belong to (I'm not really religious, sorry) but that is providing health care to Iraqi women without also preaching at them. Maybe I should have stopped paying my taxes too. I just got all caught up with trying to find ways to help alleviate some of the pain and I never thought of doing that. But that was also why I joined PC and that's funded with taxes too, so it's complicated.

When our tour ended in Belize, we came back to my home near Lexington, KY, but I’ve always been happiest involved with other people who like to help others, so after trying to just volunteer locally for a while, we hooked up with some old friends from PC and went to work for Doctors Without Borders and wound up in Rwanda before being incorporated into Red Cross. We lost someone close to us there and came home.

(But everyone should support DWB!! They're so wonderful! red Cross I'm less sure about but never mind)

When you do that kind of work, you learn a lot about how much love people are capable of showing, and also how little words like “white” mean in the face of that. I don’t want to pretend to know much about you, Macon. But I do think that when you live in the blogosphere, it’s hard to gain that kind of perspective. (I really like your blog, though and think you should keep it up!) I think if you don’t already, you should take some of that time and volunteer it in a really concrete way, since it seems like you also want to help make a difference. Even beyond making a difference, I can tell that your writing is really important to you, and I bet volunteering that will help you improve it, seriously. It would help you learn what people, even white people, are really like when it comes down to it.

Anywho I’m going on too long about myself. Good luck, Macon. I hope you work some of these things out.

Thanks sandykin, it sounds like you've gotten out of your bubble, or bubbles maybe, in lots of good ways. Though I do have some doubts about the efficacy of the Peace Corps, I agree that time spent abroad can be invaluable for privileged Americans. Can be, that is, depending on how one does it--it can also do little more than increase the thickness of one's cocoon of privilege.

I do have a life outside the blogosphere, and it includes volunteer work of the sort you recommend. But as I've been saying, life out there, and time spent with books and such, and in the blogosphere, and with well-informed friends and co-workers--all of that teaches me that racial whiteness empowers and that it encourages abuse, and also that it does so in ways that are mostly invisible, especially to white people. I know some things about "what people, even white people, are really like when it comes down to it," but I also know that because white people are categorized as white, they tend to be different, in important ways, from other people.

Good luck to you too, sandykin, and here's hoping that you can keep in mind, better than most white Americans do, how much your whiteness itself is a form of good luck for you. And actually, how in some ways--in terms, for instance, of how it tends to stunt a person's humane capacities and limit his or her outlook--bad luck too. It sounds to me like you've done some good work toward overcoming that sort of bad luck.

Jeeeeeesssuuuuss!! Macon, you're SO condescending! Did you just tell her that her time working with AIDS patients in Belize was a form of privilege?? Do know anything at all about her economic background??

> If that's true, and if you're a white American, then I think you're quite an exception.

It might be news for you but not everybody is as dead as you are.

>What? It's not an "excuse," it's an explanation. And what do you mean by who I "am"? Like, my basic, inborn personality? Anyway, that doesn't strike me as worth discussing here, on a blog about whiteness, where a primary goal is to identify common white tendencies, and when one way to do that is to identify what are probably some of those tendencies that I myself enact or have enacted.

You can call it what you want, it is still an excuse and you will use it as long as you allow society to define who you are. As long as you feel comfortable in your confined safe golden cage which is called "whiteness".

Restructure, you don't play the martyr very well, or else, you play it inappropriately.

Martyr? Please explain your thought processes that led to the concept of "martyr". This is about how you use your power as a white person to silence and control other voices, not about me personally being a victim of something. It's funny that you think of it as a interpersonal problem, so that you can attribute your problem to me rather than how you treat people of colour in general.

In the seven or eight months you've been posting here, I've refused to publish two of your comments--maybe three. And as I recall, those were rejected either as instances where your "bile" (as another commenter here put it) was just too bilious for me to stomach, or because they dredged up issues hashed out long before in other comment threads.

Notice how you believe that you can objectively decide whether or not my comments are "bilious", even if there is the possibility that you cannot stomach them because you cannot stomach harsh criticism. Even if the comments that you censored are less than or equal to five, it still has an effect on the type of criticism you receive. For example, I often have to self-censor or sugar-coat my comments here because there is a high possibility that a critical comment by me will not be published if you find it too offensive. Often, I end up not commenting at all, because of the possibility that I spend half an hour writing up a comment and you deleting it.

The statement you just made is a good example of the latter, your claim that I don't take some commenters seriously because of their race. That's flat-out ridiculous, a false and characteristically presumptuous claim about what goes on inside me.

I already made twoposts about how you don't take a criticism seriously because of a person's race, yet you have not responded to my criticism, evidently because you do not take the criticism seriously.

I take all commenters here seriously, if they have seriously constructive--instead of unrelentingly destructive, personal, and/or irrelevant--things to say.

Again, you believe that you are more intelligent that your critics of colour to decide which comments are constructive/destructive and relevant/irrelevant. Your problem is that you take criticisms about your racism personally and then you consider it a personal attack, as if pointing out the racist things you've done is the same as saying that you personally and especially are a bad person.

And if you're talking about the third wheel of your anti-Macon gang, I rejected some of his posts (a long time ago) because other commenters complained about his persistent, pugnacious thread-hijacking, and I agreed.

Yes, many of those are white commenters and commenters who are unaware of the history, who do not see the connection between what you do now as a continuation of what you have done in the past. Once again, you use majority opinion to justify that your actions are correct, especially if rejecting his comments makes it easier for you not to deal.

I spent many hours before that taking his comments seriously, until I realized that he seems mostly interested in proving me wrong and himself right, at all costs, instead of getting somewhere constructive or useful with me.

That is not up to you to decide, as you are not objective, especially when it comes to Nquest and I, since you think our criticisms about your racism are personal attacks. You shouldn't censor his comments, because other people should have a chance to read his comments and decide for themselves.

So I should change them even though I disagree, because one POC is telling me they're racist? (That's a rhetorical question.) That in itself sounds like a racist thing for me to do.

This is a ridiculous straw man of my position, and anyone who reads my blog would know that. You should try to understand why your posts are racist instead of dismissing them. It's interesting that only after kathy, a white person, criticized your racist caricature with emotional expression rather than logical argument did you decide the picture was inappropriate. It's obvious that whether or not you decide to change your posts is not based on understanding, but social pressure. If the social pressure is not strong enough, you think that the criticism is less valid.

R, my conception of a martyr includes those who claim they're being persecuted when they're not.

I don't use my "white power" to silence and control voices of color. I do that to occasional comments (including, rarely, yours) that for various reasons I don't think further the discussion here, be they apparently white or not.

It's funny that you think of it as a interpersonal problem, so that you can attribute your problem to me rather than how you treat people of colour in general.

I'm not attributing "my problem" to you. I disagree with your construction of me as someone who treats people of color in a racist manner here. It's possible that, as I have said many times in posts and comments, I wear "white blinders" that prevent me from seeing that I do so, but in every or nearly every case that you've extracted from comments made weeks and months earlier, I've disagreed. It seems to me that you're acting like Nquest and jw(be)--you can't take "I disagree with you" or "You just haven't convinced me" for an answer, and when I say such things, you say I'm not facing up to my racism.

You should try to understand why your posts are racist instead of dismissing them.

When someone claims that, I do try to understand. I've changed posts after such charges, including charges by you and others, white and non-white. I just don't agree and/or am not convinced by all such charges, and again, the apparent race of whoever levels them has nothing to do with that.

So we are not allowed to criticize you?

Of course not. Or rather, readers are welcome to criticize what I write. Criticizing a fallacious caricature of me is a tedious waste of time.

Regarding posts written by you and others on your two blogs against posts here, I do still read them, but no longer comment, because I'm clearly an unwelcome guest there. It's not because the non-whiteness of the person writing them makes me take them less seriously. It's about what you write, Restructure, and not about you as a person of color.

So, regarding your charge that I take the criticisms of POC less seriously than those of white people: it's not that I don't take that charge seriously (I actually think that if any such imbalance occurs, it occurs in an inverse manner). I just disagree with it.

R, my conception of a martyr includes those who claim they're being persecuted when they're not.

I do not think I am personally being persecuted. I think the problem you have is systemic towards anyone who criticizes you. I think you are the one who feels persecuted when you are not.

I don't use my "white power" to silence and control voices of color. I do that to occasional comments (including, rarely, yours) that for various reasons I don't think further the discussion here, be they apparently white or not.

Look, do you see what you are writing? You decide the agenda about what the discussion should be about, and when people make comments that go beyond what you think is important to discuss, you censor them.

For example, let's say you want to advance the thesis X about how race works, but your critics, including critics of colour, think that X is wrong and want to make point Y, where Y contradicts with X. However, since they are talking about Y, you think they are not furthering the discussion about X, so you censor them.

You consider yourself the expert on race.

I'm not attributing "my problem" to you. I disagree with your construction of me as someone who treats people of color in a racist manner here. It's possible that, as I have said many times in posts and comments, I wear "white blinders" that prevent me from seeing that I do so, but in every or nearly every case that you've extracted from comments made weeks and months earlier, I've disagreed.

Do you think it's possible that you disagree because of your white blinders? or do you assume that you should be able to see your own white blinders if they are pointed out to you without getting defensive?

It seems to me that you're acting like Nquest and jw(be)--you can't take "I disagree with you" or "You just haven't convinced me" for an answer, and when I say such things, you say I'm not facing up to my racism.

Yes, because we give reasons A, B, C for why you did X, and all you say is "I disagree. Let's just agree to disagree," without giving any of your own reasons. It sounds like you just want to shut down the conversation without engaging with the arguments intellectually. It could be that you disagree because you don't like how you think you are being portrayed.

Once again, you position yourself as the race guru. If somebody criticizes you and gives you reasons, you believe you do not have to respond with your own reasons, only, "You just haven't convinced me."

It's as if your critics have to prove their opinion with reasons, but you think your opinion without reasons is more valid by default.

When someone claims that, I do try to understand. I've changed posts after such charges, including charges by you and others, white and non-white. I just don't agree and/or am not convinced by all such charges, and again, the apparent race of whoever levels them has nothing to do with that.

You keep asserting that the apparent race of whoever levels them has nothing to do with how you evaluate their arguments, yet you have said, "If more POC than just you complained, I would reconsider." I have discussed this in those two posts that I have linked in my previous comment, yet you think my arguments are invalid because "you disagree".

Regarding posts written by you and others on your two blogs against posts here, I do still read them, but no longer comment, because I'm clearly an unwelcome guest there.

No, you are welcome on my Restructure! blog, which has no censorship except for an Akismet spam filter. Just because people criticize you on my blog does not mean that you are unwelcome. (For SWPS, you are welcome to respond to assertions made about you, but you should be more careful about arguing whether or not something is typical of white people.)

It's not because the non-whiteness of the person writing them makes me take them less seriously. It's about what you write, Restructure, and not about you as a person of color.

So, regarding your charge that I take the criticisms of POC less seriously than those of white people: it's not that I don't take that charge seriously (I actually think that if any such imbalance occurs, it occurs in an inverse manner). I just disagree with it.

Again, you feel that you are justified in disagreeing without reasons, because you believe your opinion is more valid by default. See above.

R, now you're not only mischaracterizing me, you're also doing that with my interactions. I haven't stated disagreement without reasons--I've done so after long discussions in which no central point of agreement was reached.

I don't consider myself "the expert on race." I consider myself the writer and moderator of a blog, and act in ways that I think best toward furthering discussion on the blog's topics. We're all pretty much free to conduct blogs however we like, and again, my basic effort here is to promote critical consideration of whiteness and white hegemony, not to promote or assert myself as an expert on that topic. You seem to believe that you know what's going on inside my head, what my motives are, but you just don't. So, again, enough speculation on your part about what I do on the basis of who I supposedly am.

>Given what you've said in an effort to distinguish your supposed sensitivity from my supposed callousness, it might be inspiring for others here to know--what has that horror propelled you to do? Surely some extensive, active, and even self-sacrificing acts? What acts of civil disobedience have you committed to counter racist abuses conducted in your name, with your money? Have you refused to pay taxes, knowing that otherwise, your name would, in effect, be written on the rocket that kills dozens of members of an Afghan wedding party? A rocket that would be far less likely to do such a thing to people living in a "white" country?

your cynism here is inappropriate. And perhaps it is only me, but I think you actually are most likely to either dismiss or to be condenscending towards People of Color like Nquest and Restructure and women, like Kathy, Sandykin (at least her nickname sounds female) an me. Sandykin seems to be more sensible when it comes to being treated in a condenscending or offensive manner, unfortunately, because I think she could offer some different points of view. You diminish her efforts and try to highlight yours. But as it seems, according to your answer to Sandykin, you don't want to wake up to the horrors.

Hi Macon,Here's a recent comment left on your blog, you chose to publish this comment, could you explain how this comment contributes to anti-racism, or do you believe that reverse racism sophism has a place in anti-racism work? I am wondering why you posted bell hooks and did not respond to this "approved" comment.

""Anonymous said...

Does anyone ever feel black people fatigue? I mean would it necessarily be racist to feel that? I work with mainly black people but I'm white and sometimes notice that the way many of my coworkers talk and interact are different from what I'm used to. Everyone's friendly but like I say its different and sometimes I get sick of it and just want to get away and back to what's familiar. But this post makes me think maybe that's allright, I mean if black people can feel white people fatigue and have it be allright then I suppose it's fine for me to talk about having black people fatigue?

Hi Macon and thanx for your blog, I read it all the time but have never commented before.""

jw, I try to be as respectful as I can to all here, unless I perceive them as having an unwarranted, unhelpful agenda. Even you, despite your expressed belief that this blog is an insult to anti-racism and that it should be deleted from the blogosphere. What you quote by me is not an expression of cynicism, and it's an effort to face up to the horrors it describes, not turn away from them.

Kathy, your tone here is so different from what you write about me on your blog. Really, it's hard to know how to talk to someone who writes about "me" the way that you do, someone who's so convinced that I'm at best a white supremacist in disguise.

I didn't respond to that commenter's slyly racist questions because I assume they're rhetorical questions. Come to think of it, I gather yours here is too. And by the way, when I "approve" a comment, it doesn't mean that I agree with its content and/or message. That comment was related to the topic of the post, and I thought others might answer it, thereby furthering the discussion. Perhaps others saw also saw its questions as rhetorical questions.

Well, Macon, I didn't reply because I figured you would think it was "nonsensical" and tell me "bye".

Do I think you are promoting White Supremacy? Yes, Macon D, I really do think that, over time, I think your blog, unwittingly or not, does do that, and the comment that you censored and posted without a reply is a good example.

Macon, STOP defending yourself to them (jw, kathy, et al). Blogs--yours, theirs--are not subject to the principles of American democracy: The first amendment does not apply here. If they are displeased with how you write about "white issues", then so be it, that is, unless you like wasting your time explaining yourself to them. I've seen their blogs, and one of them (I shall not mention who) comes across to my mind as the ramblings of a crazy and out-of-touch-with-reality person--nonetheless, I felt no need to post comments on that person's blog, wherein I argued with him/her about her/his sanity: The world is too big, that inludes the blogosphere, and life is too short.

Post whatever comments you wish to post. Delete whatever comments you wish to delete (including mine, if you want). Don't allow comments at all. The decision, the choice, as to how you run YOUR blog is yours, not mine, not theirs.

Now this last comment, to ignore jw and kathy, ha ha , what about the many posts that Restructure and NQuest have posted here, don't they count or is it white people only that matter to you Macon? Yes this is a site for white people who want to hold on to their white supremacist ideas, and Macon D is good for that, lets see if you post this comment Macon D.